<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007>> I'd be
especially interested in language that goes beyond "meets 508
standards"</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007>> and includes
usability testing as part of the evaluation criteria.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007>One thing that I have
thought about is requiring that the vendor include documentation from a
third-party source regarding the accessibility of their product as part of the
proposal process. Conceptually, vendors would be welcome to submit
proposals that include an accessibility audit from a list of previously approved
evaluation companies. That evaluation would (ideally) include some actual
testing with assistive computer technologies.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007>While I think it is
certainly valuable to have language that stipulates "508-conformance" or beyond,
there are a number of vendors who: a) do not know what that means, b) will say
"Yes, we are" when they are in fact not, and c) may meet the technical
requirements of Section 508, but still have a completely
non-usable system/interface. </SPAN><SPAN
class=522064520-23052007>Having an outside evaluation may be a bit more useful
to the overall RFP process when reviewing the different pros/cons of the
platform.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=522064520-23052007>just a
thought,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
class=522064520-23052007>sean</SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>